A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cal Thomas promotes bike commuting



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 15th 08, 03:06 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default Cal Thomas promotes bike commuting

John Thompson wrote:
On 2008-05-14, wrote:

On May 14, 9:24 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
b) The US should drill for oil offshore, in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, etc.

What are these people smoking?

Drilling in previously off-limits areas will have no significant
positive effect on America's energy dependence or the price of oil or
the price of gasoline.


But that's not the reason why they want to drill in the ANWR. There's
good money to be made pumping that oil and they want to get it before
somebody else does.


Who else is going to get the oil on U.S. territory?

Do remember that the people telling us that drilling in the ANWR will
help solve our energy problems are the same people who told us that
we invaded Iraq because of the "virtual certainty" that Saddam had
weapons of mass destruction, and for the same reason.


And they knew (and know) that neither of those was true. They have their
reasons for doing what they're doing though.
Ads
  #12  
Old May 15th 08, 07:48 AM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default Cal Thomas promotes bike commuting

Bill Sornson wrote:

Prove that and impeach Bush. Oh, wait, you can't. (But repeat something
often enough and eventually people will believe it.)


Wait, so you believe there _were_ WMDs, even though every investigator
said there were none, and the "proof" that they existed was fabricated.
So the newspapers were wrong--there still is someone that believes the
WMD story!

They have their reasons for doing what they're doing though.


Oooh, mysterious...


Not mysterious at all. The reasons Bush & company wanted to invade Iraq
had been known for years. 9-11 gave them a chance to mislead a lot of
non-critical thinkers and uninformed citizens (i.e. you), into believing
their propaganda. The reason there is no exit strategy from Iraq is
because there is no plan to ever leave. Iraq was intended to be a
middle-eastern base for the U.S. military. You can actually read the
blueprint for the real plan on-line at
"http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf"

Similarly, their reasons for wanting to drill in ANWR are also well
known. It's not about the oil, everyone agrees that the amount of oil
the the ANWR is minimal, less than one year's supply at current usage
levels. They know that if they can succeed in getting big oil into the
ANWR, they can succeed in allowing the oil companies invade other wild
places, they can allow the timber companies to clear cut in wilderness
areas, etc.

You need to look at the big picture, and not just get your news from
Rush and Sean.
  #13  
Old May 15th 08, 03:18 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 822
Default Cal Thomas promotes bike commuting

On May 14, 8:06 pm, SMS wrote:
John Thompson wrote:
On 2008-05-14, wrote:


On May 14, 9:24 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
b) The US should drill for oil offshore, in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, etc.
What are these people smoking?


Drilling in previously off-limits areas will have no significant
positive effect on America's energy dependence or the price of oil or
the price of gasoline.


But that's not the reason why they want to drill in the ANWR. There's
good money to be made pumping that oil and they want to get it before
somebody else does.


Who else is going to get the oil on U.S. territory?


A host of int'l oil companies will 'get' the oil on US territory, and
Americans will have the privilege of paying one hundred-whatever
dollars per barrell for it just like they would for any other oil. And
it won't have any signficant effect on our overall energy dilemma.
Idiots.

  #14  
Old May 15th 08, 06:11 PM posted to rec.bicycles.misc
JCrowe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default Cal Thomas promotes bike commuting

Frank Krygowski wrote:
Cal Thomas is a syndicated op-ed columnist, about as conservative as
the Pope is Catholic.


Actually Cal Thomas is very inconsistent in his viewpoints
which is one illustration of why the terms "liberal" and
"conservative" have lost so much meaning. FWIW, almost none
of the Republican politicians on the scene nationally can
make a valid claim to being conservatives either, Ron Paul
being a notable exception.

Today's column makes the following points:

a) The oil companies are good guys. They should continue to get $17
billion in tax breaks from our government.


You might want to research the issue....what the advocates of
windfall profits taxation want to do is tax the profits at a higher
rate so that making a profit becomes pointless.

b) The US should drill for oil offshore, in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, etc.


The U.S. does not drill anywhere. Companies drill. The U.S.
federal government simply sells leases to
various natural resources. The U.S. government has made some very
bad decisions in the past on such leases, mostly in the area of
timber and mineral leases. If the objection to the oil
companies profits is because the lease price is too low, that would
make sense, but it seems to me that some people just don't want
oil products to be utilized at all.

c) "A slow transition [to non-oil energy sources] will also give us
time to consider more fuel-efficient cars and greater use of public
transportation, even bicycles for short trips. Bikes would help more
of us lose weight and get in shape. A friend bikes to work every day,
saving gas, car payments, insurance and repair costs."

The first two points illustrate that he's not turned into a left-
leaning softie overnight. The third point illustrates that it's not
only left-leaning softies that see value in biking.


That's a real mistake many people make in assigning political
philosophy to issues which are not really political in nature.
Politics is force in a word. Use of bicycles as transportation or
for simple pleasure/exercise represents a potential decision for
individuals to freely make. The only way to make cycling a political
issue is to mandate bicycle use...then of course, we can no longer
even nominally claim to live in a free country.

- Frank Krygowski



--
They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for
one's country. But in modern war, there is nothing sweet nor fitting in
your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason.
-- Ernest Hemingway
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thomas Lynch charged in 16-bike pileup near Chicago [email protected] Racing 29 September 30th 07 06:20 AM
Shimano promotes murder of innocents! Appkiller Techniques 21 August 14th 04 12:48 AM
FS: CHEAP!! 53 - 54 cm Road Bike, Kinesis, Campy Chorus 9 speed, Dave Thomas, Ritchey jerry Marketplace 1 June 11th 04 10:20 PM
Lance Armstrong's mother promotes federal funding of bike/ped accommodations Brent Hugh General 5 September 4th 03 05:37 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.